1. Psychology Attachment Studies

2. Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg (1988) - Meta-analysis of cultural variation Method: carried out a meta-analysis involving a number of studies of attachment conducted in different cultural. Criteria for selection: used the strange situation; results stated the percentage of the three main types of attachment; more than 35 children; and older than 24 months. They looked at the results from 32 studies in eight different countries involving almost 2000 children. Sample included both individualist (US, UK, Sweden, Netherlands, West Germany) and collectivist (China, Japan, Israel) cultures. Findings: secure attachment was most common in all cultures (57%-75%). In collectivist cultures, insecure-resistant attachment was much more common than individualist. Variation within countries was 1.5 times greater than variation between countries. Limitations assumed that each country represented one culture but countries consist of many cultures. Researchers have found significant variation within countries the strange situation was developed in the us for individualist cultures so may not be valid in collectivist cultures

3. Takahashi (1990) – Cultural variations (Japanese) Method: used the strange situation procedure with 60 infants from urban, middle-class Japanese families. They were all first-born with mothers who were full-time caregivers. 21 key behaviours (whether infant cried when left alone) were compared to the Ainsworth et al.’s (1978) study. Findings: the percentage of secure/insecure attachment was the same as the American sample (68/32) but there were no examples of insecure-avoidant attachment in the Japanese sample. 42% of the US infants stopped crying when left alone, only 2% of the Japanese infants did. In addition, once reunited the majority of US infants stopped crying within 15 seconds whereas only 45% of Japanese infants did. This lack of avoidant attachment may be because it goes against the grain of Japanese culture. The reason for high levels of distress is related to lack of experience of being alone and the Japanese practice of remaining physically close to infants. High levels of distress led to a large number of insecure-resistant classifications. Strengths: suggest that culturally-related attachment experiences affect the classification of attachment types this reflects both personal experiences and cultural norms this suggests the Strange Situation may not be applicable beyond American middle-class families Limitations Van Ijzendoorn and Sagi (1999) reported higher insecure-resistant attachment rates in rural Japanese samples but urban samples were similar to US this contradicts the study because the sample was urban, which might be less influenced by traditional child-rearing practices and more by global culture. this challenges the validity

4. Grossman et al. (2006) – Cultural variations Method: studied 49 infants and their families from northern Germany, where all but two of the families had stay-at-home mothers. Second sample studied 51 infants, and their families, from southern Germany. Collected data using the strange situation and home observations and interviews to assess behaviour such as parental sensitivity and attitudes. The participant assessment continued for more than 20 years. Findings: in the northern sample (were more emphasis is placed on emotional independence and self-reliance) about 66% were insecurely attached; in the southern sample about 66% were securely attached. This suggests that there are cultural variations in attachment type within a country and these are due to culturally-determined practices. Follow-up research found that the northern sample, at age 16, had poorer peer relations and showed greater dependence than the southern sample. This supports the continuity hypothesis (the view that there is a link between infant’s attachment relationship and later behaviour). Limitations the Strange Situation was developed in the US and based on the assumptions of that country/culture the emphasis on emotional independence may make infants appear insecurely attached even if they weren’t – attachment classifications may not be valid in addition, the findings of the study was correlational which does not imply a cause and effect relationship - there may other intervening variables

5. Robertson & Robertson (1952, 67, 73) – Disruption of attachment Method: recorded observations of children who were in situations of separation from their mother-figure. In hospitals in the 1950s, children were on their own with most hospitals only allowing 1-2 hours of visiting a week. First film was of 2 year old Laura who was in hospital for 8 days for a minor operation using time sampling of 2, 40 minute intervals at the same time every day. A second film was of 17 month-old John, who spent 9 days in a residential nursery, where the nurses had little time for him and his unhappiness was ignored. The third film was of 4 children all under the age of 3, who were all placed in the care of the Robertsons for 10-27 days while their mothers were in hospital. Their routines were kept the same and links to fathers and mothers were maintained. Findings: Laura and John became distressed and depressed and became withdrawn from their caregiver when they returned. This was described by the PDD model (protest, despair, detachment). The 4 children showed mild signs of anxiety and greeted their mothers enthusiastically at the end of their stay. This showed that disruption of attachment need not cause distress as long as a substitute caregiver is provided. Strengths the data from observations of children in their everyday lives (natural), so had high ecological validity this shows that the results have relevance to everyday care of young children Limitations Bowlby et al. tested a group of children who had experienced prolonged separation but, when compared to ‘normal’ children in adolescence he concluded that many appeared to have suffered no ill-effects. This suggests that children who have a secure attachment may be better able to cope with episodes of disruption of attachment (i.e. there are individual differences in the way children respond to separation).

6. Radke-Yarrow et al. (1985) – Depressed mothers and emotional disruption Method: recruited American mothers by advertising for mothers with a young child (average 31.7 months), who either were or weren’t depressed. There were 68 depressed mothers and 31 non-depressed mothers. Mother-infant interactions and attachment were assessed using the Strange Situation as well as a half-day observation of the mothers and their children. Findings: no differences between the children of mothers with minor and no depression – both groups had about the same levels of insecure attachment as Ainsworth’s original sample (29-25%). Rate of insecure attachment were much higher in the children of mothers with major depression or bipolar disorder (47-79%). The lack of emotional availability in mothers with depression is associated with insecure attachment. Strengths the results of this study has real world applications – offering substitute emotional care as well as helping mothers to become more emotionally available may reduce the likelihood of infants developing insecure attachment Limitations: attachment type may have been affected by other factors (environmental or genetic factors) depression may have also led to physical separation emotional separation is only one of several possible explanations

7. Hodges and Tizard (1989) - Children in care (failure to form attachment) Method: located a group of 65 children in institutional care from the age of 4 months until 2-4 years. It was assumed that they would not have formed attachments. Some children were subsequently adopted (adopted group) and some were returned to their original homes (restored group). The two groups were referred to as ‘ex-institutional’ children. These were matched to a control group based on sex, position in family, one- or two- parent family, and occupation of main breadwinner. Children were assessed at age 4, 8 and 16 on intellectual and social development. Findings: at age 4 the institutional group displayed characteristics of disinhibited attachment, a lack of attachment. The adopted children were more likely to have formed secure attachments and restored children had greatest problems with siblings. Both of the ex- institutional groups were more likely to be unpopular and less likely to be part of a crowd. This suggests that privation does have long-term effects on some social relationships. Limitations there are other interpretations of the findings – it is possible that they were slower to mature and, at age 16, were not as emotionally developed as the control groups attrition (the loss of participants over time) is a problem with longitudinal studies and the results may have differed if this had not occurred, challenging the validity of the results

8. Rutter et al. (2010) – ERA study (English and Romanian adoptees) Method: studied 165 Romanian children over 10 years, who spent their early lives in Romanian institutions. 111 were adopted before the age of 2 and the other 54 before the age of 4. Tested at age 4, 6, 11 and 15 on physical, cognitive and social development, gathered through interviews with parents and teachers. This was then compared to a control group of 52 British participants adopted before 6 months in the UK. Findings: at the time of adoption the Romanian orphans lagged behind the control group – they were smaller, weighed less and were classified as mentally retarded. By age 4, some of the children had caught up (almost all of the Romanian children adopted before 6 months). Subsequent follow-ups have confirmed that those adopted before the age of 6 months developed better. This suggests that there is a sensitive period in the development of attachments – a failure to form an attachment before the age of 6 months appears to have long-lasting effects. Strengths a Canadian study has followed Romanian orphan post-adoption comparing a group adopted before 4 and after 8 months plus a control group attachment types were similar for early adopted and control group but the late adoption group had much more insecure attachment even after 10 years Limitations if this is true, then we would expect to find many more of the children adopted after the age of 6 months had not recovered a reason for this may be that they formed attachments in the institution – difficult to generalise because we are guessing about what happened before 6 months

9. NICHD (2003) – US Study on the impact of day care on aggression Method: the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development initiated a longitudinal study to collect data on children in day care. Study of 1009 children and their families were recruited from 10 locations in America and from a range of different social and educational backgrounds. The study was conducted in four phases: 0-3 years, 4-6 years, 7-12 years and 13-15 years. This analysis concerned children at age 5. Measures of social and cognitive development are made using interviews, questionnaires and observations with and of children and their families at home and in day-care. Findings: children in full-time day care were found to be about three times more likely to show behaviour problems. Children who spent more than hours per week in day care were more likely to demonstrate problem behaviours, including increased levels of aggression. Both aggressiveness and assertiveness were measured separately and found that both were higher in children who spent more time per week in day care. Strengths longitudinal study means that comparisons can be made between the same participants over time – eliminating participant variables the NICHD study took home background into account when analysing the data this means that any differences between the groups will be due to the care itself Limitations the data also shows that day care doesn’t affect aggression – 83% of children who spend 10-30 hours in day care did not show higher levels of aggression data found that mother’s sensitivity was a more important factor than form of day care

10. EPPE (2007) – The impact of day care on aggression UK sample EPPE (2007) – The impact on aggression UK sample Findings: anti-social behaviour was measured through questionnaires and interviews. An early start to day care before the age of 2 years was associated with higher anti-social behaviour scores at ages 3, 5 and 6 - association had disappeared by age 10. This association was greater in low quality day care. Limitations natural experiment – children may display greater sociability/aggression because of factors that have nothing to do with the day care itself children from ‘problem’ homes tend to go to lower quality day care aggression is operationalised using rating scaled which include behaviours such as ‘rough and tumble play’ and ‘arguing over possessions’ which is likely to occur in situations where children have to get on with other children – the label aggression may not be appropriate

11. EPPE (2007) – impact of day care of peer relations (UK sample) Method: equivalent to the NICHD study. The EPPE aimed to assess what kinds of provision are most effective for attainment and development. Involved a sample of 3000 day care children and their parents, from differing social backgrounds and a further 300 home-cared children as a control group. It is a longitudinal study looking at children between the ages of 3 and 7. Data about pre-school experience was collected through questionnaires and interviews and social behaviour was assessed by pre-school workers and teachers (independence, cooperation and peer sociability). Findings: suggests high quality day care improves all aspects of social behaviour, such as independence, cooperation and peer relations. Starting day care early was associated with being more sociable with peers at age 5. By age 7 the benefits for social development had disappears, perhaps due to the influence of school children. Limitations natural experiment – children may display greater sociability/aggression because of factors that have nothing to do with the day care itself the association between better peer relations and going to day care is due to such preferences rather than the day care experience other research has found a negative relationship between day care and peer relations – Belsky and Rovine (1988) found that children who experienced more than 20 hours of day care were more likely to be insecurely attached

12. Borge et al. (2004) – Social Disadvantage (impact of day care on aggression) Method: a sample of 3431 Canadian children, aged 2-3 were used to investigate the impact of family backgrounds on higher levels of aggression (comparisons between home and day care, socially advantaged and disadvantaged children). ‘Social disadvantage was measured by considering occupational level, maternal education, number of children in family and family functioning. Assessment of aggression was made by the ‘person most knowledgeable about the child’ and a rating in three situations (how often child kicks/bites/hits other children, how often child reacts with anger in accidental situations, and how often child gets into fights). Findings: 7.4% of home-cared children showed high levels of aggression compared to 5.2% of day care children. Home cared children were twice as likely to be socially disadvantaged, implying that this causes the aggression. In socially-advantaged children, there was no different between day-care and home-cared children. Limitations Assessments relied on subjective reporting by family members. Possibility of social-desirability bias in socially- advantaged families The contrast between the findings may be due to the method in which the aggression was operationalised, focusing on physical aggression